Summary
On farm QA schemes were established in the Australian red meat industry almost a decade ago. Despite considerable effort by many industry bodies, participation in these schemes by producers is less than desirable, given increasing consumer expectation of the safety of food. Therefore a review was conducted with two objectives:
• To identify strategies that can increase the adoption of QA schemes by beef and sheep meat producers.
• To revise on farm QA so that it forms part on the fabric of the industry rather than being seen as an “add on”.
The Australian red meat industry has established global credibility as a supplier of safe, wholesome beef and sheep meat. However, over the past decade there have been occasional incidents where agricultural chemicals were found at low levels in fresh beef. Even though these incidents are extremely uncommon and the levels of chemicals detected are far below those likely to cause human health problems, consumers the world over expect food to be chemical free. Any one of these incidents has the potential to bring the trade to a temporary halt, at great cost to Australia. Also, if producers who have used chemicals incorrectly cause the problem, companies involved are increasingly likely to take civil legal action to recover their losses.
The beef and sheep meat industries have gone to considerable effort to minimize these risks through the use of CATTLECARE, FLOCKCARE, the National Feedlot Accreditation Scheme, and the National Vendor Declaration (NVD).
As at 30 June 2002, approximately 43% of all beef cattle and 9.6% of all sheep slaughtered in
Australia were sourced from farm or feedlot enterprises operating an industry owned or private
QA scheme. The cattle are derived from CATTLECARE accredited properties (17.2%), feedlots (13.9%), and dairy farms (6.7%) and supply chain alliances (5.0%). Approximately 4,700 beef cattle properties are CATTLECARE accredited. The sheep are derived from FLOCKCARE accredited properties (2.2%) and supply chain alliances (7.4%). Approximately 800 sheep properties are FLOCKCARE accredited. For several years the level of producer enrolment in on-farm QA schemes has been static.
The NVD was introduced to provide additional assurances of freedom from chemical contamination and there are now very few slaughter cattle or sheep sold in Australia without an NVD. However, the NVD applies only to a consignment of livestock, it is not audited and there is no requirement to keep records to support the claims made on the form. The NVD therefore exposes producers to liability without offering the protection of supporting QA arrangements.
The review found that Australian consumers expected food safety to be a “given” and felt that red meat was already safe, with the government and retailers being the main groups responsible for food safety. This is good for the industry but also means that any future problem will significantly damage consumer trust.
Industry workshops and surveys involving over 800 people identified that the main drivers for producers to join a QA scheme were improved access to markets and financial incentives. Barriers to entry or reasons for leaving a QA scheme were lack of financial return, complexity and inflexibility of the schemes, onerous audit arrangements and the fact that QA accreditation is not required to sell cattle in many cases. Improving the pull through from customers and adding value to producers as a result of participation in QA were found to be essential elements
of any revised approach to on farm QA.
Throughout the review it was noticeable that there is willingness by the majority of producers to give assurances on food safety and animal health issues about their livestock. A new approach suggested in the workshops was to develop levels or tiers of assurance, beginning with a minimum level, based on food safety, for all producers. There was overwhelming support for linking the basic level of assurance to the NVD so that processors would assist in pulling the scheme through. The universal uptake of the NVD made it a natural point to connect QA into the majority of producers.
A new concept was developed in which it is suggested that CATTLECARE, FLOCKCARE and other QA schemes introduce two levels. The first level would only contain those elements concerned with food safety. Record keeping for producers in Level 1 would need to be simplified, possibly assisted by the use of a standardised diary. Annual audits of all farms would be replaced by self-assessment, random audits, and automatic audits on detection of a breach. There would also need to be significant consequences for consistent audit failures. Level 1 should be seen as an industry wide food safety assurance scheme, aimed at controlling risk factors across most livestock properties.
Level 2 would contain the commercially driven supply chain alliances and the generic QA schemes that would include a series of modules that meet quality criteria in addition to food safety. These modules would be based on existing QA elements and progressively revised to include new customer requirements as they occur. Examples include hides, environment, OH&S, animal welfare, transport and eating quality. These modules must conform to the needs of customers, while also adding value to the management of the farm business. Producers would only need to participate in those modules specified by their customers. Level 2 should be seen as the scheme for customers who require product from fully guaranteed, quality assured businesses. Level 2 should build on level 1, to enable producers to progress.
Once producers have joined the revised scheme (one or two levels) they would be eligible to use the scheme certification mark. For these producers the NVD would serve as the documentary confirmation of their certification to purchasers of their livestock.
Prior to implementation of Level 1 all sectors of the industry will need to agree on a revised set of standards. To assist in pulling the revised scheme through, it has been suggested that these standards could be underpinned by the AUS-MEAT National Accreditation Standards. This would commit the majority of beef processors and major sheep meat processors to purchase livestock from QA certified properties. In addition, some Australian State governments have indicated their intention to legislate to make NVDs compulsory. Over the coming months there must be considerable debate about these options. The industry will be in a good position for this debate if CATTLECARE and FLOCKCARE are revised along the lines proposed in this review. The introduction of Level 1 will enable all producers to meet future food safety assurance requirements and will assist in minimising their liability.
